Comments on: USCIS releases new G-28 form; havoc ensues as numerous problems become evident

By: jesus

jesus — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:21:36 +0000

i just have a question whats the pogres time of a g-28 form???

By: Emma

Emma — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:28:55 +0000

The law student issue is a major one, as so many law schools have immigration clinics that encourage law students to represent clients at immigration court.

By: Nation of immigrators - A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system » With the New G-28, Immigration Agency’s Rugged Individualism Defies the Rule of Law

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:36:30 +0000

[...] a recent post by an immigration colleague notes, quite a brouhaha has erupted within the immigration bar and among purveyors of immigration [...]

By: Andrew Wizner

Andrew Wizner — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:01:12 +0000

I also find it interesting that the form instructions clearly limit filing the form G-28 by attorneys admitted to practice in the US. The G-28I is for attorneys represented elsewhere and relates to representation outside the U.S. It would seem to limit the ability of attorneys not admitted to the U.S. to file an I-130, for example, at a CIS service center for a client living outside the U.S. –Andy Wizner

By: Vic Goel

Vic Goel — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:35:45 +0000

Robert, thanks for your insightful comments. It’s good to hear that the intent behind the change was noble.

Clearly, restricting the ability of a “notario” to submit a G-28 and enter an appearance in an immigration matter is a valid and important public policy concern, and I applaud any effort to protect the public from the unauthorized practice of law by anyone who is not licensed as an attorney or otherwise recognized as an accredited representative in immigration matters. At the same time though, that raises another question–

I’m not a UPL expert, but I thought that notarios have never been authorized to enter their appearance in U.S. immmigration matters. So, shouldn’t the immigration agencies have been rejecting their G-28s marked “Others,” anyway? The old G-28 required anyone marking a G-28 using the “Others” option to provide a full explanation. I’m curious as to what sort of explanations notarios used to sneak by the agency gatekeepers in the past.

Incidentally, I’ve heard that another group that has been affected by the elimination of the “Others” option are law students working under the supervision of immigration law professors. I’m sure a workaround/exception will be developed for this use, but confusion reigns at the moment.

Also, going back to the notario issue for a moment — AILA maintains an excellent compendium of information on how to file a complaint against unauthorized notarios and other “immigration consultants.” The AILA web page with state-specific info on filing complaints can be found at http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=26749.

By: Robert Divine

Robert Divine — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:33:14 +0000

Vic, the real goal of the new G-28 was to eliminate the “other” box for people who can represent parties. This makes it impossible for a notario to submit a G-28. When combined with the recent statement by EOIR about the very limited circumstances under which a judge may allow in-court “representation” by a “friend” who is not compensated, pursuant to written request and representations each time, you can see that EOIR and USCIS have worked together to try to accomplish something that is very important for the protection of foreign nationals from incompetent notarios. I’m sure you can appreciate that.

Best regards,
Robert Divine

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:08:11 +0000

Also, no box to check for DOS, NVC, etc. So it will be interesting on how we will represent clients for consular processing, as we are asked by posts or NVC if we have submitted a G-28.